County skips on Lafferty lawsuit

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors decided this week to not join the Lafferty Ranch lawsuit as a plaintiff. While public access advocates are disappointed with the decision, the county could potentially change its mind and join the suit later on, depending on a judge’s ruling within the next few weeks.

However, regardless of the future ruling, Sonoma County Supervisor David Rabbitt said he feels it isn’t necessary for the county to join the suit, because much-needed progress has been made in mediation rather than in court.

In September, Sonoma County Judge Elliot Daum tentatively ruled that the Friends of Lafferty and the City of Petaluma do not have sufficient standing to invoke claim to Lafferty Ranch’s road easements, because the easements belong to the county and not the city. The ruling was the latest roadblock in a decades-long battle over access to Lafferty Ranch, a 270-acre piece of city-owned land northeast of Petaluma.

Because the Lafferty right-of-way belongs to the county, Friends of Lafferty advocates and city officials were hoping that county supervisors would join the suit. Matt Maguire, a longtime advocate for opening Lafferty to the public, said that while he’s disappointed with the decision of David Rabbitt and the board of supervisors, it’s “not the end of the road.”

“Our supervisor is on the wrong side of history with this issue,” Maguire said. “Lafferty is going to be open to the public as a park someday. We’re trying to make access to this wonderful, wild land available, and at the same time we’re fighting to protect the county’s interest in the road right-of-way.”

Maguire said he doesn’t understand Rabbitt’s reluctance to join the Lafferty suit, especially with the supervisor’s recent vote to support open space on Fitch Mountain in Healdsburg. But Rabbitt said comparing the two cases is comparing apples to oranges.

“With Fitch Mountain, there was no lawsuit and the City of Healdsburg chipped in $400,000 to make it happen,” Rabbitt said. “Here you have zero dollars and a lawsuit.”

Back in March, Rabbitt said he was against the county joining the Lafferty suit because he didn’t believe the lawsuit “really achieves the long-term goal of getting access to Lafferty.” Rabbitt echoed those concerns this week, saying that mediation has been most effective in making progress with land access. He wants to see continued mediation take place among the parties, with the county as a neutral mediator.

“This whole idea of fighting over public access and going to court over the access, in my mind, is really a red herring,” Rabbitt said. “If the goal is truly to have access to Lafferty, the county can work as a neutral mediator, and we can get a lot further much quicker than if we were to go to court.”

Maguire agreed that mediation has been good for the two parties and that progress has been made, but he said that “mediation is not going to settle the access issue.”

“You need to clear the access issue before you can have a conversation about what happens on the property,” agreed City Councilmember Mike Healy.

Rabbitt said the board of supervisors will likely reconsider joining the suit if Judge Daum rules against the City of Petaluma in the coming weeks. But he said he’s also looking for more communication from the city as to what the end goal is for Lafferty Ranch.

“The City of Petaluma has not taken any action, in public at least, to really say what they want to do with the land,” Rabbitt said. “I’m not opposed to working with the city; I’m in favor of it. But I want to know what the city’s long-term plan is up there.”